Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, but where does it say that Peter uttered an incantation or sacramental prayer above them as they were baptized??? Know ye not that Paul was admonished to call upon the name of the Lord HIMSELF as he was baptized???

Acts 22:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Being baptized IN THE NAME of Jesus involves the convert calling upon the name of Jesus... not some priest, bishop, preacher, or human intermediary chanting the name of Jesus over a convert.

Both the Trinitarians and Apostolics fall into the same error of insisting that there be a sacramental "formula" to what was originally a heartfelt cry for the forgiveness of sins while standing in the water.

James straightens out the issue when he writes his epistle in the Greek stating that the name was invoked upon you. Most scholars agree that this is speaking of the name of Jesus being invoked over the neophyte in baptism.

James 2:7

do they not themselves speak evil of the good name that was called upon you?

[Aquila]

Frankly, you could have 10,000 Oneness preachers screaming the name of Jesus over a convert... but if that convert isn't calling upon the name of Jesus in prayer... they just got wet.

You could have 10,000 Trinitarian preachers chanting the titles of the Trinity over a convert... but if that convert is calling upon the name of Jesus in prayer... their sins were remitted.

We serve a God who knows the heart of man... not a Catholic God of sacraments.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

James straightens out the issue when he writes his epistle in the Greek stating that the name was invoked upon you. Most scholars agree that this is speaking of the name of Jesus being invoked over the neophyte in baptism.

James 2:7

do they not themselves speak evil of the good name that was called upon you?

Sources please?

[Aquila]

Ultimately, my point is... if these martyrs sincerely sought Jesus in prayer at their baptism, though they were baptized with some dolt repeating titles... God saw their hearts.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already pointed this out, but doing something in the name of the Lord involves the one baptizing to speak, just as the one casting out a devil spoke the name.

Amen, in all you do in word and deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Colossians 3:17.

The disciples of John the Baptist which met Paul were told by Paul that the Baptist would say that they were to believe on the one who would come after John. This obviously was spoken over the neophytes of John Acts 19:3-4. Therefore when they heard that Jesus was that one, they were re-baptized in Jesus' name, with Paul invoking the name upon them as he would do in any prayer.

[Aquila]

Ultimately no man can judge the salvation of another. We might judge as to how close it comes to the ideal of Scripture... as we interpret it. But ultimately we cannot judge the eternal destiny of another's servant.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

James straightens out the issue when he writes his epistle in the Greek stating that the name was invoked upon you. Most scholars agree that this is speaking of the name of Jesus being invoked over the neophyte in baptism.

James 2:7

do they not themselves speak evil of the good name that was called upon you?

Sources please?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sources please?

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(7) Do not they blaspheme . . .—To “blaspheme” is to hurt with the tongue, and includes all manner of evil speech; but a more exclusive use of the word is with regard to things divine, and particularly the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31). A moment’s reflection will show, unhappily, that this is alluded to in the text.

That worthy name by the which ye are called?—Better, that good, that glorious Name which was invoiced (or, called) over you—viz., at baptism. “Into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19) had all been baptised who were thus addressed; but most probably the Second Person of the Trinity is referred to here. And it was the scorn and contempt visited upon His Name, which changed the mere abuse and ribaldry into a perilous likeness to the deadliest sin. Most commentators thus restrict the Name here to that of Christ. If their view be correct, the blasphemy would probably be linked with that epithet of “Christian”—then so dishonourable—coined, we are told, first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). But there were far more insulting terms found for the poor and struggling believer—“Nazarene,” “Atheist,” and even worse.


Matthew Poole's Commentary


Do not they blaspheme? If the rich here spoken of were Christians, then they may be said to blaspheme Christ’s name, when by their wicked carriage they caused it to be blasphemed by others, unbelievers, among whom they were, Romans 2:24 Titus 2:5, &c.; 1 Timothy 6:1: but if rich unbelievers be here meant, the rich men of those times being generally great enemies to Christianity; he would from thence show how mean a consideration riches were, to incline the professors of religion to such partiality as he taxeth them for.

That worthy name; or, good or honourable (as good place, Jam 2:3, for honourable) name of Christ; they blaspheme what they should adore.

By the which ye are called; or, which is called upon you, either, which was called upon over you, when you were baptized into it; or rather it is a Hebrew phrase, and, implies no more than (as we read it) their being called by it, as children are after their fathers, and wives after their husbands, Genesis 48:16 Isaiah 4:1; for so God’s people are called by his name, Deu 28:10 Ephesians 3:15.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(7) Do not they blaspheme . . .—To “blaspheme” is to hurt with the tongue, and includes all manner of evil speech; but a more exclusive use of the word is with regard to things divine, and particularly the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31). A moment’s reflection will show, unhappily, that this is alluded to in the text.

That worthy name by the which ye are called?—Better, that good, that glorious Name which was invoiced (or, called) over you—viz., at baptism. “Into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19) had all been baptised who were thus addressed; but most probably the Second Person of the Trinity is referred to here. And it was the scorn and contempt visited upon His Name, which changed the mere abuse and ribaldry into a perilous likeness to the deadliest sin. Most commentators thus restrict the Name here to that of Christ. If their view be correct, the blasphemy would probably be linked with that epithet of “Christian”—then so dishonourable—coined, we are told, first in Antioch (Acts 11:26). But there were far more insulting terms found for the poor and struggling believer—“Nazarene,” “Atheist,” and even worse.


Matthew Poole's Commentary


Do not they blaspheme? If the rich here spoken of were Christians, then they may be said to blaspheme Christ’s name, when by their wicked carriage they caused it to be blasphemed by others, unbelievers, among whom they were, Romans 2:24 Titus 2:5, &c.; 1 Timothy 6:1: but if rich unbelievers be here meant, the rich men of those times being generally great enemies to Christianity; he would from thence show how mean a consideration riches were, to incline the professors of religion to such partiality as he taxeth them for.

That worthy name; or, good or honourable (as good place, Jam 2:3, for honourable) name of Christ; they blaspheme what they should adore.

By the which ye are called; or, which is called upon you, either, which was called upon over you, when you were baptized into it; or rather it is a Hebrew phrase, and, implies no more than (as we read it) their being called by it, as children are after their fathers, and wives after their husbands, Genesis 48:16 Isaiah 4:1; for so God’s people are called by his name, Deu 28:10 Ephesians 3:15.

Trinitarian sources?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Expositor's Greek Testament

Jam 2:7. βλασφημοῦσιν: for the force of the word cf. Sir 3:16, ὡς βλάσφημος ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν (the Greek is certainly wrong here, the Hebrew has בוזה, “he that despiseth”) πατέρα. Cf. Romans 2:24, τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ διʼ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (Isaiah 52:5); the word in the N.T. is sometimes general in its application, of evil speaking with regard to men (in the Apoc. of Peter the phrase, οἱ βλασφημοῦντες τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης occurs twice, 7, 13); at other times, specifically with reference to God or our Lord.—τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς: the name here (especially in view of καλόν) must be “Jesus” (Saviour), for the Jews would not be likely to have blasphemed the name of “Christ” (Messiah); in Acts 4:10-12 it is also the name of “Jesus,” concerning which St. Peter says: Neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. τὸ ἐπικλ. ἐφ. ὑμ. is a Hebraism, in Amos 9:12 we have: יאשׁר נקרא שׁמי עליהם which the R.V. renders (incorrectly): “which are called by my name,” it should be: “Over whom my name was called,” as rendered by the Septuagint, excepting that it repeats itself unnecessarily, ἐφʼ οὒς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπʼ αὐτούς. The Peshiṭtâ, too, has, שמא טבא דאתקרי so that the R.V. rendering here is incorrect, though the margin has “which was called upon you”. The idea which the phrase expresses is very ancient; a possession was known by the name of the possessor (originally always a god), this was the name which was pronounced over, or concerning, the land; in the same way, a slave was known under the name of his master, it was the name under whose protection he stood. And so also different peoples were ranged under the names of special gods; this usage was the same among the Israelites, who stood under the protection of Jahwe—the name and the bearer were of course not differentiated. This, too, is the meaning here; it does not mean the name that they bore, or were called by, but the name under whose protection they stood, and to which they belonged Parallel to it was the marking of cattle to denote ownership. (See, in reference to what has been said, Deuteronomy 28:10; 2 Samuel 12:28; Jeremiah 7:10). In the passage before us there is not necessarily any reference to Baptism, though it is extremely probable that this is so; Mayor quotes Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, πρὶν φορέσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ νεκρός ἐστιν· ὅταν δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σφραγῖδα (baptism) ἀποτίθεται τὴν νέκρωσιν καὶ. ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν ζωήν. Resch (op cit. p. 193) quotes a very interesting passage from Agathangelus, chap. 73, in which these words occur: … καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπικέκληται ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ναὸς τῆς θεότητός μου. In the passage before us, the omission of all mention of the name, which would have come in very naturally, betrays Jewish usage; as Taylor truly remarks (Pirqe Aboth., p. 66): “A feeling of reverence leads the Jews to avoid, as far as possible, all mention of the Names of God. This feeling is manifested … in their post-canonical literature, even with regard to less sacred, and not incommunicable Divine names. In the Talmud and Midrash, and (with the exception of the Prayer Books) in the Rabbinic writings generally, it is the custom to abstain from using the Biblical names of God, excepting in citations from the Bible; and even when Elohim is necessarily brought in, it is often intentionally misspelt …” It should be noted that this phrase only occurs once elsewhere in the N.T., and there in a quotation from the O.T., quoted by St. James in Acts 15:17.